“STRIKE BUT HEAR!” 


To the. Democrats of Fairfield County: 

When I addressed my constituents of the 
late 12th Congressional District, on the 21st 
of March last, a communication on the sub¬ 
ject of the increase of tiie salaries of cer¬ 
tain Federal offic.ers, including those of Sen¬ 
ators and Representatives in Congress, in 
answer to a most unjust attaclc made upon 
me by a well-known clique in Perry county, 
I had vainly hoped, from the perfect de¬ 
fense I had interposed to that charge, that 
that would be the last occasion I would be 
called upon to obtrude myself before the 
public on that subject. But it seems I was 
mistaken. That I have been deliberately, 
and by arrangement, selected as a victim to 
some new programme of the new and self- 
constituted Democratic leaders, is so clearly 
manifest that “he who runs may read,” in 
every newspaper published in the new dis¬ 
trict, formed of the counties of Franklin, 
Perry, Fairfield and Pickaway. Take the 
following, from the “Ohio Eagle” of the 
22d ultimo, as an instance. I had, in my 
own mind about come to the conclusion to 
let this matter pass in silent contempt, un¬ 
der the impression that if my public record 
as a Democratic Representative in Congress 
for six years, did not give the lie to the low 
and base insinuation contained in Jthis arti¬ 
cle, nothing I could say in addition to that 
record ought to do it. But I have yielded 
to the advice of friends upon this subject, 
particularly to some of the honest, outspo¬ 
ken, straight-forward farmers of the county, 
men whom any man might be proud to 
acknowledge as friends. The following is 
the article alluded to, appearing under the 
editorial head of the paper: 

[From the Ohio'Eaatle of May 22. 

“lyltich to be RcgrrcttodP’ 

“ We regret to learn that Hon. P. Van 
Trump has concluded to, and has actually 
drawn his increased Congressional salary. 
The fact that Mr. Van Trump opposed the 
passage of this salary grab bill was highly 
gratifying to his constituents. They en¬ 
dorsed his action when he opposed it, and 
received with a great deal of pleasure the 
nature and extent of that opposition. 

“ Thev further had a right to expect, and 
did expect, that he would consummate that 
oppo.sition, bv refusing to accept the in¬ 
crease of salary. He has seen fit, however, 
to act otherwise, and, as we are informed, 
has drawn his back pay. We shall not 


question Mr.Van Trum])’^ motives in doing 
it. He had the legal right to do it, and no 
one has the right to attempt to curtail his 
prerogative in the premises. 

“But.we will say, in all kindness to Mr. 
Van Trump, and speaking as one of his 
friends, that while his late constituents will 
impute no improper motive to him in re¬ 
ceiving the extra $5,000, they will have to 
surrender a portion of their good feeling 
toward him, and come to the enforced conclu¬ 
sion that his opposition to the salary grab was 
not complete. 

“ When Mr. Van Trump opposed the bill 
originally in Congress, his constituents 
backed him. They regarded it as an out¬ 
rage, and but little short of actual larceny 
of the public treasury. They have not 
abated that opinion one whit even nnto 
this day. They believe that every dollar of 
back pay taken was wrongfully taken—that 
the act of taking was wrong from beginning 
to end. We, in common with Mr. Van 
Trump’s friends, believed that he would 
refuse to receive the $5,000 which he refused 
to vote to himself. He may be able to give 
reasons, however, which will be perfectly 
satisfactory ’to his friends. The fact that 
Mr. Van Trump accepted the extra pay is 
not of itself legally or morally wrong. What 
his friends expected was that he would re¬ 
fuse to accept it. He has disappointed many 
of his friends.” 

Well, if this is not, on a small scale, one 
of the most successful efforts to “steal the 
livery of heaven to serve the devil in,” then 
I do not know what is. How the tender 
cords of the devoted friendship of thisfel-' 
low of the Paper Mask are snapped asun¬ 
der ! What an overflowing of the lachry¬ 
mal ducts! What agonized sensibilities! 
What a painful specimen of suffering hu¬ 
manity is here presented! Why, here is 
all the “ mockery of woe” of a fashionable 
funeral! If my political grave is to be dug, 
I want no such automaton mourners, no 
such crocodile tears, and no such ready¬ 
made grief, exhibited at the last dread 
ceremony ! But all badinage aside: what 
does all this mean? Does this paper- 
masked assassin suppose that,like the ostrich 
of the desert, his whole person is concealed 
by simply putting his head in the sand ? 
AVe shall see in the end. But for what 
purpose, and with what motives have I 
been selected out of the three hundred 
members of the Forty-second Congress who 





2 


have accepted this extra allowance of pay, 
and every one of the four hundred and 
sixty members of the Forty-third Congress 
who are in monthly receipt of tlie same, al¬ 
though elected under the same law with the 
Forty-second, to the exclusion of all others 
as individuals, even by my own county pa¬ 
pers? Is not the hollowness of the pre¬ 
tended friendship of the managers of the 
“ Eagle,” perfectly manifest from the fact 
that they could have expressed their opin¬ 
ion upon the question without holding me 
up, with hypocritical sympathy, to the at¬ 
tention of the public ? Two Democratic 
members of the Cdiio delegation, not only 
accepted the increased salary, but roted for 
it, and yet the “Eagle” neither mourns or 
denounces them. 1 have looked in vain 
through its sprightly editorial columns for 
any tierce thunders against tlie action of 
Congress upon this question. Why did it 
not, with its powerful editorial beak and 
sharp, incisive talons, pounce upon Gen. 
Grant for appropriating to himself, by a 
single stroke of the pen, $100,000 of the 
people’s money, while he could veto honest 
pension bills in favor of crippled soldiers. 
Why did not these devoted friends of mine, 
who turn up their eyes in such an agony of 
regret at my doing what they admit I had 
the legal” and moral” right to do, de¬ 
nounce in fitting terms the fact which has 
been charged and never denied, that the 
President of the United States stooped from 
his high place and interceded with his Ke- 
publican friends to vote for the bill, while I 
Tyas voting against it ? 

/''Knowing as well as I could know any¬ 
thing without direct, positive and actual 
knowledge through the senses of sight, or 
feeling, or hearing, that neither Col. Hite or 
Mr. Wetzler, the publishers of the “Eagle,” 
had written this article, although they 
meanly adopted it by admitting it into their 
columns, but that it was the production of 
some outsider who had an axe to grind, I 
called in the forenoon of Monday, the 26th 
ult., to obtain the name of the writer. I 
found Mr. Wetzler in the office, and did not 
see Col. Hite at all. I called Mr. Wetzler’s 
attention to the subject and enquired of him 
who wrote the article ? He hesitated for a 
few moments, in some embarrassment, and 
first put himself upon the ground that, as it 
was in the editorial columns, the qmesuwp- 
tion was that it was editorial matter; at any 
rate that they (Wetzler & Hite) were re¬ 
sponsible for it. I told him that would not 
do. We discussed the matter in that form 
for a while, until at last he admitted squarely 
that the article was the production of a man 
outside the office, and that neither himself 
or Hite had written it. I then peremptori¬ 
ly demanded the name of the writer, which 
he refused to give. I then told him in pret¬ 
ty strong terms, that if the “ Ohio Eagle,” 
claiming to be the accredited organ of the 


Democratic party of Fairfield county, was 
to be converted into an instrument in the 
hands of concealed and unknown outsiders, 
and to be managed and controlled for their 
purposes, even to the attacking of better 
Democrats than themselves, that I, as one 
of the Democrats of the county, wanted to 
know it. He still refused to give uj) the 
name, saying they were resj)onsible for the 
article. "He then made the remark that I 
was not aware of the extent of the dissatis¬ 
faction among Democrats, all through the 
county, at my address of the 21st of March, 
on the salary question. This information 
took me by surprise, and I enquired of him 
the ground of this dissatisfaction? His re¬ 
ply was that I had not shown “ boldness ” 
enough in iiiy opposition to the bill! I re¬ 
plied to him that I did not believe there 
was any smh state of feeling among the 
Demorrats of the county; and enquired of 
him what other “boldness” a member of a 
legislative body could exhibit against a bill 
besides that of voting against it when debate 
was not allow( d? To this he made no reply. 
I ask the reader to take a note of this reason 
as given by Mr. Wetzler, because it throws 
a flood of light upon the true interpretation 
of a most suggestive and infamous insinua¬ 
tion in the article itself. Kow, what a ter¬ 
rible and most overwhelming objection is 
this! If I could imagine for one moment 
that the intelligent Democracy of Fairfield 
county could be influenced or duped by any 
such miserable subterfuge as this, I would 
lay down my pen at once; for, in such case 
their praise or their censure would be alike 
indifferent to me. Why, what amount of 
“ boldness” does it require to vote upon a 
call of the ayes and noes? Is it the amount 
of voice or the extent of dramatic gesticu¬ 
lation, which denotes or measures the “ bold¬ 
ness” of a member of a legislative body, 
when no debate is allowed upon a given ques 
tion, and the simple act to be performed is to 
ascertain, viva voce, the sentiments of the 
body -by a call of the ayes and noes ? In such 
case, if the test of “ boldness” was a ques¬ 
tion of vocal power, I was in a most unfor¬ 
tunate condition to do justice to my con¬ 
stituents with dilitation of the lung-s and 
bronchial sore throat. I was certainly, as 
the record will show, “ bold ” enough to 
make the tally clerk hear me vote in the 
negative, and have me so recorded. If the 
question before the House was to be deci¬ 
ded by a game of fisticuffs, the relative 
amount of “ boldness,” exhibited by the dif¬ 
ferent members might be reasonably ascer¬ 
tained ; and he who would hide himself un¬ 
der the Speaker’s chair, or get behind the 
gigantic form of the Sergeant-at-Arms, or 
any other conceivable thing, in hall or field, 
to “ save his bacon,” would hardly be en¬ 
titled to as much credit for “ boldness,” as 
he who would “ face the music ” and “mill ” 
away, right and left, among the mingled 


mass of exfited and belligerent statesmen! 
Now, Mr. Wetzler must allow me to be a lit¬ 
tle skeptical as to the entire accuracy of his 
statement in regard to the extent of the 
dissatisfaction, as well as its alleged cause, 
existing among the Democrats of the county 
touching my late address. I will show, be¬ 
fore I get through, that in my second in¬ 
terview with him on the next morning, he 
gave quite another and a different reason for 
this alleged dissatisfaction among the De¬ 
mocracy of the county. It requires a good 
memory to sail in the sea of false premises. 
After considerable other talk upon the sub¬ 
ject, long after his admission that the ob¬ 
jectionable article had been written by an 
outsider, and upon my reiterated demand 
for his name, all at once a look of mental 
relief seemed to animate his countenance, 
and he said to me: “Judge, you seem to 
think that this article was written by some 
one in this town ; but you are entirely mis¬ 
taken ; he lives in another county.” This 
struck me intuitively as anew arrangement 
in his mind, and I arose from my seat and 
said to him I would give him until the next 
morning to make up his mind about giving 
me the name of the writer. As I turned to 
leave the room, I said to him that I would 
not publish any reply to the article in the 
“ Eagle” until after the Democratic primary 
election ; that inasmuch as Col. Hite, his 
associate publisher, was a candidate before 
the people, at that election, for an import¬ 
ant county office, I would not put myself in 
a position to be suspected of seeking to be 
revenged in that way, although 1 had 
abundant cause to do so; and that is the 
reason why this communication has been 
delayed until the present time. On the 
next morning when I again called at the 
printing office, I found Mr. Wetzler still 
alone. This I regretted as I very much de¬ 
sired to see him and Col. Hite together. Upon 
my asking him what conclusion he had come 
to in regard to giving up the name of the 
secret writer of the article complained of, 
he said he adhered to his determination not 
to give up the name; and then went into a 
long statement about their having hired a 
man to write for the “Eagle,” who not 
only lived out of the county, but out of the 
Congressional District, and that he had writ¬ 
ten the article in question at their suggestion. 
That ended the discussion as to giving up 
the name : but X was anxious to know a 
little more al;)ont the dissatisfaction which 
he had alleged existed upon the subject of 
my address. In answer to a question in 
that direction, he said the reason assigned 
for it was that I had failed to state whether I 
had or hod. not accepted the extra allowance of 
salary. Quite a different reason from the 
one assigned the day before! I replied to 
him that at the time of the publication of 
that address I had not determined whether 
I would accept or reject it; and gave him 


the reasons why I had not determined it, 
which, as they are the very gist of the pres¬ 
ent question, will be stated hereafter. I 
also stated to him that the subject of the 
charge in the Lexington Herald, to which 
that address was a reply, was not the 
question whether I had received the salary 
or not; but was the charge now reiterated 
in the “ Eagle,” that I had not acted in 
good faith in my opposition to the bill. 

This m >st cruel and ungenerous charge, 
direct y m ide by the “Herald,” the “Ea¬ 
gle” has sustained by insinuations. Do the 
publishers of the “Eagle” know what 
scheme they are endorsing by thus seconding 
the attacks of the “ Herald ?” It means 
something more than what appears upon 
the surface. What Democrat, without some 
sinister and ulterior design, or without a 
front of brass or the shameless brow of 
impudence, would dare to arraign me be¬ 
fore the Democracy as derelict in my duty to 
them, or as faithless to their or my own 
honor and integrity? But to proceed with 
the interview: By way of probing the gen¬ 
tleman, I asked him the question, how, and 
upon what ground it was, that he discrimi¬ 
nated between Mr. Jewett and myself re¬ 
ceiving the same amount of increased pay 
under the same law, and when both our 
salaries was fixed by law, as an implied con¬ 
tract with the people, at the time of his 
election as well as my own ; and whether 
Mr. Jewett’s title or any other member’s of 
the Forty-third Congress, to this increased 
pay was any more “ or moral to 

use the language of the “ Eagle,” than mine 
was, as an earnest, if not a “ bold ” oppo¬ 
nent of the bill, except that my successor 
was a millionaire and I was in less than 
moderate circumstances ; and, also, whether 
the discrimination thus made did not arise 
from that too common, perhaps instinctive, 
impulse of humanity, to worship the rising 
instead of the setting sun ? To this the gen¬ 
tleman made no reply, and I reiterated the 
announcement that I would be heard from 
at the proper time. It is quite relevant fur 
me to say, in this connection, that Mr. 
Wetzler was unnecessarily profuse in his 
declaration of personal friendship towards 
myself, which may explain, not only the 
production, but the appearance in the next 
“Eagle,” of the following paragraph, from 
the Columbus “ Dispatch ”: 

“ The Lancaster ‘ Eagle,’ at the home of 
ex-Congressman Van Trump, comes out 
earnestly against his acceptance of the back 
salary steal, and expresses great disappoint¬ 
ment at his course. We know Wetzler, of 
the “Eagle,” to be one of the Judge’s best 
personal and political friends, and, therefore, 
the condemnation from such a source is not 
only honest, but extremely and deservedly 
severe.” 

Now, the above paragraph, by its repub¬ 
lication here, not only shows the animus of 


4 


the puUishers of the “ Eagle,” but it shows 
another thing: it exhibits the fact that they 
can obtain, at least when applied for, the 
most cordial Columbus endorsement of any 
attack they may make upon me. A city 
that will send a set of loafers and gamblers 
as delegates to an important political con¬ 
vention to nominate a candidate to represent 
the people in the Congress of the United 
States, who unblushingly offer to sell their 
votes for money, as was offered to me in 
August last, during the sitting of the Con¬ 
vention, will not be likely to find it a diffi¬ 
cult matter to furnish men who would be 
willing to do almost anything. As the main 
feature presented in justification of the pub¬ 
lication of this article was put upon the 
ground of personal friendship to me, and 
as Mr. Wetzler claimed itas a sortof special 
merit that they had not copied it into their 
columns any of the attacks made upon me 
by other journals, and particularly that of 
the “ Ohio State Journal,” the organ of the 
Republican party at Columbus, it is well 
enough to state here, as germane to this 
claim, that they never even condescended 
to notify their readers of my position and 
votes upon this salary bill from the 10th of 
February to the 4th of March. It was left 
for the Republican “ Lancaster Gazette ” to 
supply this significant omission, in that pa¬ 
per under date of the 13th day of March. 
It w'as a manly and liberal statement of 
my true position, aiithough its editors were 
under no obligation to me, either personal 
or political, to do so. They did not even 
owe me the common courtesy due to a sub¬ 
scriber of their paper. I could state other 
facts relating to other subjects, in contradic¬ 
tion to this claim of friendship, not only on 
the part of Mr. AVetzler, but of Col. Hite 
also, but, for the present, I choose to confine 
myself to the subject m hand. I admit 
that the “Ohio Eagle” was a friend and 
supporter of mine up to a certain time; 
but as that question belongs to another sub¬ 
ject, I shall not now discuss it; whether I 
ever shall depends upon the future. 

But now to the article itself, and the 
question which it involves: In speaking 
upon this subject I do not intend to mince 
matters. I have heretofore quietly sub¬ 
mitted to certain things with the forbear¬ 
ance of a Christian, in order to prevent any 
disturbance in the Democratic ranks. But 
forbearance, even with such motives, has its 
reasonable limits. I shall consent to play 
the role of “ Hold on, Quaker,” no longer. 
In the first place, then, I pronounce this 
article, under the circumstances and for the 
purposes with which it was concocted, as a 
mean, low, dirty, insidious and hypocritical 
production, and its author, whoever he 
may be, as a liar and a scoundrel. No man, 
who understands the force or true interpre¬ 
tation of language, can hesitate a moment 
as to the animus and purposes of the writer. 


I have not talked with a single intelligent 
Democrat in the county who has any doubt 
as to its true meaning. It is, by insinua¬ 
tion, a covert, but adroit charge, that my 
whole opposition to the bill for theincreawse 
of salaries was not founded in good faith, and 
that I acted the part of a cheat, a humbug, 
and a charlatan. If the publishers of the 
“Eagle” are so dull of comprehension as 
not to have discovered the true character of 
this paper, they had better plead that fact 
in justification of its publication, rather than 
the equally hypocritical claim of personal 
friendship to me. Will these gentlemen 
permit me to make another suggestion ? 
Is it prudent, or wise, or quite consistent, 
in them to talk much about extra pagf 
Had they not better, at least pending the 
present election, keep a little “ h-l-a-n-k ” 
on that subject ? 

Now, what are the facts in regard to my 
reception of this extra allowance of salary, 
paid to me under an existing law of the 
United States ?—notin the sum of $5,000, 
as IS charged, but $4,584, after deducting 
$416.00, being mileage for two years ? I 
had opposed the bill from its inception to 
its final passage, in good faith and without 
a shadow of turning, maugre the base in¬ 
sinuations of all the scoundrels on earth. 
I am, therefore, notin any wise responsible 
for its existence as a law. In this connec¬ 
tion, I have been told that a few, and 
among the rest, one of the Commissioners 
of the county, have objected to my “pair¬ 
ing” off, on the vote upon the report of 
the Conference Committee, with another 
Democrat, who was in favor of and voted 
for the bill. I have fully stated the facts, 
in regard to that transaction, in my former 
communication, with this exception : three 
nights before that “ pair ” was made, and 
only four days before the final adjournment 
of Congress, I had a second hemorrhage of 
the lungs or throat, I could not then tell 
which, that completely prostrated my 
remaining strength. The weather was 
intensely cold and stormy. I ought not 
to have left my room, and was run¬ 
ning the risk of my life by doing so. 
I had hardly been able to mount the 
steps of the Capitol for a month be¬ 
fore. In this state of case, I made the 
“ pair,” to avoid the night session of Mon¬ 
day, the last night before the final adjourn¬ 
ment of Congress. No man but an igno¬ 
ramus or a personal enemy would object to 
my action under such emergency. The dis¬ 
ease under which I was suffering, and which 
I will carry with me to the grave, I had 
contracted on the slump in the service of 
the Democracy; and it is not only con¬ 
temptible, but it is cruel injustice, m any 
Democrat, to object to my course on that 
point. I only wish to say further on this 
subject, that any one who feels so inter¬ 
ested in the matter had better consult my 


5 


family physician, Dr. Boerstler, as to my 
condition of health upon my return home 
four days afterwards, lie will not be guilty 
of a professional prevarication for all the in¬ 
crease of salary I have received. At any 
rate I would do the same thing again under 
like circumstances. I never agreed to be¬ 
come a slave by consenting to be made a 
n\ember of Congress. 

Somewhere about the middle of March, 
without any correspondence with the De¬ 
partment on the subject, I received from 
the Treasurer of the United States a draft 
on the Sub-Treasurer at New York, in the 
sum of $4,584, as balance due me on ac¬ 
count of salary as a member of Congress. I 
put it in my pocket-book, with the determ¬ 
ination, so expressed to several of my 
friends at the time, that I would hold it 
suspended and unnegotiated, until it was 
fully developed* wUat course would be 
adopted, generally, by the members. There 
had then already occurred some discussion 
in the newspapers against the extra allow¬ 
ance. I had made up my mind distinctly 
to this proposition, and so declared it: that 
if there was any thing like a general refusal 
by members, to receive this extra pay, I 
would not touch a dollar of it, but would 
return the draft to the Treiisury ; while, on 
the other hand, I was not going to put my¬ 
self in any exceptional or e|uixotic position 
as to its rejection ; that if there was a gen¬ 
eral acceptance, by men who voted for it 
worth millions of dollars, belonging to both 
political parties, as w-ell as those who 
voted against it, I was not going to be 
such a double-distilled and unmitigated fool 
as to throw it away. That position, in my 
conviction, being both right and proper, 
under the circumstances as stated, and 
others to be stated hereafter, I shall stand 
by and abide the consequences, whatever 
they may be. I held the paper in my 
pocket until the 5th day of May, nearly 
two months. Intending to start for Wash¬ 
ington City on the next day, to attend to 
some business for my son living in Wash¬ 
ington Territory, I, on that day (the 5th), 
negotiated the draft at the First National 
Bank of Lancaster, and had the proceeds 
placed to iny credit in that institution, and 
so stated the fact to a number of gentle¬ 
men on the street. Now', what w'as the 
position of the question of extra pay on 
that day in the country? Nearly three 
hundred Senators and Representatives had 
received and appropriated it to their own 
purposes. There were from twenty-five to 
thirty Senators and Representatives who 
had refused-to receive it, or had returned it 
after being received. How are all these re¬ 
fusing Senators and Representatives entitled 
to be classified ? Several of them are can¬ 
didates to fill vacancies in the House; a 
number of them, now members of the 
House, are avowed candidates for the Sen¬ 


ate. Another class hail from the Pacific 
coast, and would lose in the operation of 
the new salary bill, because their mileage, 
wdiich would be deducted, amounts to from 
$2,600 to $3,000, with free passes over the 
Union Pacific railroad ; and some three or 
four of them received their pay wdthoiit 
objection and appropriated it to charitable 
or public purposes, as though that would at 
all change the question of morality or pro¬ 
priety in taking it from the Treasury. This 
state of things is one of the causes of self¬ 
justification which I present to my fellow 
Democrats for consideration in passing their 
judgment upon me under the arraignment 
of the “ Ohio Eagle,” or the very small 
clique wdio control it. Another cause is, 
the history of the salary question itself, and 
the unbroken practice of the government 
in regard to it. The question of the mode 
and extent of compensation to the officers 
of the Federal Government was one of 
serious consideration in both the Federal 
and State Conventions, w'hich formed and 
ratified the Federal Constitution. I think 
the plan finally adopted, to wit: the power 
of self-compensation to each Congress, a most 
unwise, impolitic, and unfortunate one. 
But the question was carried by a most de¬ 
cided majority of the States in the general 
convention. Among the various amend¬ 
ments first offered to the Constitution, and 
submitted to the several States by a two- 
thirds vote of Congress, was the following, 
of W'hich James Madison w'^as the author: 

“ No law varying the compensation for 
the services of the Senators and Represen¬ 
tatives shall take effect until an election of 
Representatives shall have intervened” 

This resolution, when submitted to the 
several States, was rejected. In 1816, the 
question was attempted to be revived in 
the States instead of Congress, at least by 
the Legislatures of Massachusetts and Ken¬ 
tucky, but again failed, and the subject has 
remained at rest ever since. Now, I do not 
state these particulars, in the history of the 
question, to justify the law of March 3, 
1873, for I will not commit a political felo 
de se by justifying a law wdiich I voted 
against; but I do it, in connection with 
other facts, to justify myself in accepting the 
compensation fixed by the law itself under 
the Constitution. Every increase in the 
compensation of members of Congress, 
since the foundation of the Government, 
has been fixed in the same w'ay. There is 
one circumstance which applies to both Re¬ 
publican and Democratic critics, in relation 
to this salary law; and I notice it now not 
to condemn the argument, for in an equitable 
as against a legal construction of the Con¬ 
stitution, it is sound ; but to show how', as 
if by a kind of tacit understanding, they 
have since shaped their objections so that 
one party will, not have the advantage of 
the other in the next, or rather present Con- 


6 


gress, upon this question, by putting the 
responsibility as equal between them in an 
^ixisting Congress. There are various polit¬ 
ical, or rather business reasons, vvhy such a 
compromise woiil<l be quite natural now-a- 
days. It will be remembered that the first, 
and by far the strongest, argument against 
the laW, assuming that it was passed with 
honest motives, was the claim, vigorously 
set up, that the salary of $5,000, as it stood 
on election day in 1870, was an implied con¬ 
tract, between the people and the members 
then elected ; that such sum was to be the 
measure of their compensation during the 
term of the 42d-Congress. And I say there 
is great force in this proposition ; and the 
great error of the Constitution is, that it 
permits an alteration of the contract by only 
one of the parties to it. But this objection 
applies to the 43d-Congress just as well. 
The same contract existed between them 
and the people on election day, in 1872, as 
it did in 1870. The “Ohio Eagle” would 
be justified as much in assailing my success¬ 
or, Mr. Jewett, for taking his “ extra pay,” 
under the same law, as it can be in assail¬ 
ing me. For his two years of service in the 
43d-Congress, he will get, and is now get¬ 
ting, just the same amount of extra pay 
that I have received for my two years’ ser¬ 
vice in the 42d-Congress. Upon this ques¬ 
tion of implied contract, there can be no 
difference between back and present pay ; 
or, if there is, I am not responsible for it, 
because / voted against both. 1 am not dis¬ 
posed to claim with a distinguished Repub¬ 
lican recipient of his extra allowance, the 
benefit, by way of defense in taking my 
own increased pay, the technical point that 
because the express power is given in the 
Constitution to increase the salary of an 
existing Congress, the implied contract is 
annulled and overcome. Legally and tech¬ 
nically that is so ; but that does not change 
the question of the doubtful propriety or 
indelicacy of one’s voting to increase his 
own salary. As said before, this back pay 
has been*^ included in every salary law 
passed by Congress since the foundation of 
the Government. On the 17th of July, 
1806, the last year of the term of my im¬ 
mediate predecessor, the salary of members 
of Congress was raised from $3,000 to 
$5,000, by the unanimous consent of the House 
of Representatives-, without even a vote be¬ 
ing called for or taken, including back pay ; 
and yet the friends of that predecessor, or 
a little clique of them in Perry County, 
are now my hottest assailants, for doing 
less than he'did, for he, in effect, if in the 
House at the time, voted for the hill; and I 
have never heard that he refused the extra 
allowance, back pay and alll But what 
better thing could be expected than such 
attacks upon me, by a little knot of court 
house politicians, who, three years ago, 
voted down, in secret committee, a resolu¬ 


tion proposing to endorse my record as a 
Democratic Representative of the people 
in Congress, upon the avowed ground that 
it would injure the prospects of that gen¬ 
tleman for nomination as a contending can¬ 
didate for Congress, although they had en¬ 
dorsed every other public >fficer connected 
with the County, whether residents or not! 

I now come to the only remaining points 
I shall make upon this question, and then 
let it rest forever. It is not quite pleasant 
for me to state the facts connected with the 
point; but as I have yielded to the advice 
of friends in that regard, I shall do it as 
briefly and sparingly as I can. 1 will al ways 
defend my honor and reputation at every 
hazard. I will do, what for me is a hard 
thing to do: I will sacrifice my pride of 
feeling in their maintenance and defence. 
In doing it, I shall, on the present occasion 
at least, permit no ill-timed modesty, no 
fear of being thought vain-glorious or ego¬ 
tistical, to interfere with a full presentation 
of this phase of the case. It is quite well 
known, I suppose, that up to the year 4861, 
I had been a life-long Whig and an oppo¬ 
nent of the Democratic party. Upon the 
great question which finally culminated in 
war between the sections, my convictions 
were with the Democratic party, as a great 
and the only existing conservative organi¬ 
zation to stand as a breakwater between the 
two belligerent factions, which were threat¬ 
ening the existence of the Union ; and I did 
not hesitate to give practical effect to those 
convictions by uniting myself, for weal or 
for woe, with the Democratic party. My 
advent into the Democratic ranks was 
through the fiery furnace of persecution ; 
and I here notify my high-toned and big- 
minded assailants that it will require a 
persecution equally hot to drive me from 
the Democratic party so long as there shall 
remain enough of principle in its organiza¬ 
tion to make it the duty of honest men to 
stand by and support it. I sacrificed every 
social relation I had on earth in uniting 
myself with the Democrats in that wild 
period of insane passion and excitement. 
Thousands of Democrats deserted their 
party and went over to the enemy, and be¬ 
came Governors, and Colonels, and Gener¬ 
als, and shoddy contractors, who liave since 
sneaked back into its ranks, and are now 
plotting to destroy its organization. In 1861 
Judge Whitman’s term of office as Judge of 
the Court of Common Pleas expired, and a 
convention was called to nominate a candi¬ 
date for the office. A strong pressure was 
made upon me to be a candidate for the 
office. I declined upon two grounds: Ist, 
that I was too new a Democrat, and, 2d, 
that my pecuniary circumstances would not 
permit me to give up a good practice at the 
bar for so small a salary, $1,500, in such a 
time of high prices for the necessaries of 
life. The next year, 1862, Judge Whitman 


^signed his seat on the bench, and went to 
Cincinnati for a more lucrative compensa¬ 
tion. Another convention was called to 
nominate his successor, and I was again 
urgently pressed by the Democrats of alb the 
counties in the district to accept the nomi¬ 
nation. They now put it upon a ground 
that was hard to resist,—that important 
questions, in the then condition of the 
country, might arise in which the legal 
rights, if not the liberties of the people, 
would be involved; and they were pleased 
to say that they had such entire confidence 
in my firmness and honesty as to feel deeply 
anxious for my nomination. I took the 
question under advisement; and one great 
inducement for me to take the place was 
the fact that I w'as so utterly broken down 
in spirits by the recent death of my wufe 
and a favorite son, that I. longed foj‘ quiet 
and repose, which 1 thought might be better 
found on the bench than in the struggles at 
the bar. I accepted the nomination, and 
Wi s elected by a large majority over one of 
the best men in tiie Republican ranks. 
That my friends were not mistaken in their 
apprehensions as to the public crisis, and 
the importance of the judicial position, the 
Tod case,—the question arising upon the 
infamous Indemnity Act of March 3, 18(33, 
—my attempted impeachment before the 
Senate of Ohio,—the constitutionality of the 
Legal Tender Act,—and the See case,— 
abundantly show. I claim no special merit 
for these decisions, nor do I state them as a 
license to do wrong—I simply performed my 
sworn duty, and am willing to let them 
stand as memorials of that fact—I catalogue 
them on the present occasion solely to re¬ 
mind honest Democrats that before they 
enter upon a personal crusade against me, 
to be sure that they are not led on by dema¬ 
gogues to assail a man who stood by them 
when it required something more than the 
hope of office to meet and not stirink from 
the fury of the storm. I also present these 
facts in another aspect, for a fair and just 
consideration by Democrats, and that is 
upon the question of compensation. It is a 
fact not generally known that I lost, while 
upon the bench, about $2,000 ; that is to say, 
my expenses exceeded the aggregate of the 
salary about in that sum. As for instance, 
the salary was $1,500 per annum. Every 
year I was upon the Common Pleas bench 
1 was nominated by the Denioca'ats in State 
Convention, without any possible hope of 
success, as a candidate for the Supreme 
Court, and each year the Democratic State 
Central Committee drew upon me in the 
sum of $100, as my share of the expenses 
of the campaign. That reduced the pro¬ 
ceeds of the salary to $1,400. Then the 
income tax upon ^ the salary was $25.00; 
expenses in holding Common Pleas and 
District Courts, Jfr250; State and County 
taxes, $150, leaving, a balance of unexpend¬ 


ed salary in the sum of $975, out of which, 
in a time of the highest war prices, I had to 
support not only my own family but partial¬ 
ly that of my son-in-law. Col. Moore, who was 
in the army. Now, it is not the most pleas¬ 
urable thing in the world to make these 
statements ; but the rancor and perfidy of 
men sometimes make it a duty to do thing.s 
repugnant to the pride of our nature. I 
proposed at one time to resign, but the few 
Democrats I spoke to about the matter, dis¬ 
suaded me from it, upon the ground that 
if I did it would be charged to timidity as 
to the responsibility wliicii was resting upon 
me. In this state of case, in March, 18(34, 
I addressed a note to Hon. A. G. Thurman, 
partially stating the circumstances of my 
indebtedness, and asked of him a loan of 
$1,500 or $2,000. On the next day Oibe 
one of Nature’s nobleman that he isi he 
sent me his check for $2,000, which debt I 
paid oft’, on the 10th of last month, ont of 
the very fund which these carting hy}>ocntes are 
now making such an incessant howl over! How 
many of these fellows would have refused 
the increased salary under similar circum¬ 
stances, or any circumstances ? In August, 
18(36, the Democratic Convention at Circle- 
Ville nominated me as their candidate for 
Congre.ss while I was at home asleep, with¬ 
out my knowledge or consent, and adjourn¬ 
ed. They had balloted for a day and night 
without making a nomination, adopted me 
as a compromise candidate, and I was com¬ 
pelled to accept the nomination. Under a 
clause in our State Constitution,!! was deem¬ 
ed prudent I should resign my seat on the 
bench, which I did, whereby I sacrificed 
$750 of my judicial salary, which had, in 
the meantime, been raised to $2,500 per 
annum, a better compensation than $5,000 
to a member of Congress. I could show, if 
necessary, that I made nothing while in 
Congress. So that the result of my public 
life is the fact, that I took from my children 
what was to them ten of the most impor¬ 
tant years of my life, and all that I brought 
back to them, outside of this increase of 
salary, was broken health and a shattered 
constitution. Now% I make this statement 
not to justify the act, if it was wrong, (for I 
am not so poor a logician as that), but to 
dejiionstrate that I am ^^ntitled to at least a 
fair hearing before the Democracy; and to 
show the meanness and baseness of the 
personal attack u])on me, by Democrats 
wearing tlm false mask of friendship, and 
who imagine I stand in their w'ay, for do¬ 
ing an act which they admit I had the 
“ legal ” and moraV^ right to dol 
Without recognizing the right of any man, 
or set of men, to <lictate to me what I shall 
do in my own afiaiis, I hereby make the 
following xjroposition : Let the Republican 
party get General Grant to refuse the $100,- 
000 extra allowance made to him by this 
law; a majority of the Republican mem- 


8 


bers who voted for the bill and accepted 
their extra pay under it; a majority of 
those who voted against it and yet received 
their pay ; and a majority of those who did 
not vote at all but accepted ;—and then let 
the Democratic party compel a majority of 
the forty-seven Democrats who voted for 
the bill in all its stages and received their 
pay ; a majority of those who voted against 
it and received their pay; and a majority of 
those who did not vote at all but received 
their pay ; and then let a majority of the 
present Congress who have already received 
three monthly installments of their extra 
pay under the same bill in the sum of 
$038.00 each; and then let them repeal the 
law when they meet in December; let all 
these funds be covered into the Treasury of 
the United States, and I will refund every 
dollar of the $4,584 which I have received, 
under the circumstances heretofore detailed, 
if I shall be compelled again to mortgage 
my property to raise the money; but not 
before will I recede one inch from the po¬ 
sition I have deliberately taken. Now, I 
acknowledge there is not much merit in 
this proposition, because there is not a very 
remarkable degree of chance or risk in it. 
It is like betting that the sun would rise 
to-morrow' morning, or on. any other fact 
fixed by natural laws. These men did not 
court the odium of voting for the bill with¬ 
out making up their minds, in advance, to 
“stand the hazard, if they die,” and to 
realize the benetits proposed by the law. 

And now. Democrats of Fairfield county, 
I address this communication particularly 
to you, because among you I have lived, 
with but a single intermission, from the 
time of my birth to the present hour. You 
know every leading circumstance of my 
life, whether public or private, whether as 
a Whig or a Democrat. You know whether 
I am a scoundrel or an honest man. As to 
you, whether as neighbors or fellow citizens, 
and as to the people at large, without ref¬ 
erence to party, I acknowledge I am par¬ 
ticularly sensitive in regard to my honor 
and reputation. If I shall fail to leave to 
my children much of this world’s goods, I 
above all things, want to transmit to them 
that mu(;h higher and richer legacy—a 
fair name and a spotless reputation. The 
good o])inion of rny fellow-men is as dear 
to me as life itself, although I have never 
resorted to the acts of the demagogue either 
to acquire or retain it. If I do not deserve, 
I certainly do not desire it. To reach its 
greatest value and desirableness, it should 
be based upon a s)lid foundation; a con¬ 
sciousness that it was acquired ui)on false 
premises, and without merit, would destroy 
all that consolation, in the great battle of 
life, which it is so eminently calculated to 
give. But while I feel all this anxiety about 
an approving public opinion, I will not, 
either for its acquisition or retention, hum¬ 


ble myself to an unmanly or craven solici¬ 
tude, nor sacrifice any independence of 
character, which is, at last, the true test of 
manhood. To me this spirit has been a 
kind of religion. Although this point in the 
character of a man is often misunderstood 
by the public, yet its owner had better 
suffer in that direction, and for such a 
cause, than to command the plaudits of 
millions by the acts of the sycophant or the 
wiles of the demagogue. The sublime invo¬ 
cation of Smollett is one of the best politi¬ 
cal prayers ever uttered by the voice of 
man: 

“ Thy .spirit, indepkndence, let me share, 

Lonx of the lion-heart and ea^tle-eye ; 

Thy footsteps (ollow with my bosom bare, 

iS’OR HEED THE STORM THAT HOWLS ALONG THY SKY ! 

In conclusion, I have only to say, that 
I have submitted this paper to the press, 
without consulting a single human being 
as to its contents. When it comes to a 
question of personal honor, I shall always 
decide that issue upon my own responsi¬ 
bility. These fellows, in ther zeal to shape 
the future to their purposes, have misin¬ 
terpreted my former forbearance. They 
could not comprehend the motives which 
made me apparently indifferent to past 
meanness and duplicity. They will find, 
in the sequel, that I shall not tamely con¬ 
sent to be “led like a lamb to the slaughter.” 
They had better, if they desire “to be 
happy,” take new soundings of the waters 
they are attempting to navigate. And upon 
this subject of the shambles particularly, 
they had better not forget the two recent 
significant instances, in the counties of 
Pickaway and Perry, in relation to the 
choice of Delegates to the Constitutional 
Convention. These are grave-yard admoni¬ 
tions not to be ignored. 

“ Haik ! from the tombs a doleful sound ! 

What is it that incites these men to such 
rancorous attacks upon me, now that I have 
retired to private life ? If it is an appre¬ 
hension that I shall again be a candidate for 
Congress, they may quiet their perturbed 
souls on that subject; for I here solemnly 
declare that I would rather go back to where 
I started in life, and work on the canal at 
twenty-five cents per day, than subject my¬ 
self to the ordeal of meanness and trickery 
which such a candidacy would have to en¬ 
counter. 

By way of a healthful suggestion, I hereby 
give notice to all concerned in another di¬ 
rection, “ according to the provisions of the 
statute in such case made and provided,” 
that, hereafter, I shall look for more respon¬ 
sible antagonists, if this unprovoked crusade 
shall be kept up against me, and will, per¬ 
haps, develop some facts, at the proper time 
and place, which may turn out to be not 


9 


»!• 


quite so agreeable as they will be interest¬ 
ing. “ A word to the wise is sufficient.” 

I am, gentlemen, ^ 

Very respectfully, ’ 

Yours, &c., 

P. VAN TRUMP. 
Lancaster, June 3, 1873. 


Since the foregoing was put in type, the 
following article appeared in the “ Hocking 
Sentinel.” It is a fitting rebuke to the 
malice of my assailants. Whether Mr. 
Greep or myself was wrong in the differ¬ 
ence between us, to which he alludes, need 
not be discussed here, because it is wholly 
irrelevant to the subject in hand. If he 
honestly thought he was right, and I have 
no doubt he did, that fact only adds to the 
manliness and magnanimity of the article : 

Jud^e Van Trump. 

For some time past the press of the State, 
and especially the Democratic press of the 
District, have been aiming a constant fire 
of invective and abuse against Judge Van 
Trump, of Lancaster, on account of his 
having taken the additional compensation 
voted to members by the last Radical Con¬ 
gress. Now whilst the Sentinel has no de¬ 
fense to make of the taking of the addition¬ 
al pay, and no apology to offer for whatever 
publications we have made in reference to 
members guilty of the steal, still we think 
there is reason in all things, and whilst con¬ 
demning a public servant for a mistake or 
fault, he should not be utterly ostracised and 
branded as a villain when a whole lifetime 
of honorable and distinguished service is 
a part of his record, and the history of his 
country. 

Theiniblic pretty generally know that the 
writer of this has not been under any obli¬ 
gations, and feels none personally, towards 
the Representative in Congress of this Dis¬ 
trict, and that about as harsh things as have 
been said of Van Trump we have the re¬ 
sponsibility of saying. But what we did 
say of him, we believed to be correct and 
exactly the “fact, and was said at a time 


when he was in the full tide of power and 
popularity. Now that he is out of ofiice, a 
citizen like the rest of us, we think that 
censuring him as we may, and should, and 
have done for the mistake of his closing 
term, yet there is in his public career a 
record of lofty patriotism, distinguished 
ability, and practical usefulness that should 
not be forgotten by his constituents. 

Judge Van Trump has been one of the 
ablest men the Democracy have had in 
Congress during the last decade. He has 
been, in personal honesty and political in¬ 
tegrity, above reproach. He has served his 
constituents faithfully and well, and now 
that he has blundered—as who of us under 
the circumstances might not—shall we for¬ 
get and ignore his long and honorable 
record in behalf of the party and his dis¬ 
trict. 

Censure Van Trump as we may, there is 
in him the qualities of the high toned, hon¬ 
orable gentleman, the able and efficient 
legislator, and the true, tried and unfalter¬ 
ing Democrat. 

Let us then, whilst blaming him if we 
wish, not forget, the useful and honorable 
service he has done his party and his dis¬ 
trict, and we shall find that there has been 
enough of good, we think, in his record to 
temper the bitter with the sweet, and make 
us look upon him with more of pride and 
satisfaction than of disdain and regret. 

Render to him the measure of justice, 
that is his due, and Ohio has no public 
man, no Congressman more worthy of the 
gratitude of the party than Judge Van 
Trump. If he must be sacrificed upon the 
altar of political ingratitude, if he must be 
executed to gratify the howling frenzy of 
the hour, let him have the honors due to 
his name, and let him be buried with his 
“ martial cloak around him.” 

We stand by Van Trump asking no 
favor, giving none, but conceding to him 
as a Democrat and a constituent the credit 
and honor and gratitude rightly his due, 
and ready and willing to defend him and 
our position, regardless of public clamor 
and the howl of the jackals greedy to pick 
his bones. 














4 ' 


> 


1 

V 


✓ 




V 

1 


1 




t 




/ 

j 



I 


